The
defendant, Marcellus Catchings, appeals from the judgment of
conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit
assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes
§§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (1).[1] On appeal, the
defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to inflict
serious physical injury on another person, as required for a
conviction of attempt to commit assault in the first degree.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The
jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the
early morning hours of March 18, 2011, Patricia Beverly was
pulling into the driveway of a pool hall in Stamford when her
vehicle was struck by another vehicle. Beverly exited her car
to confront the other driver, but the other driver drove off.
The defendant, who was friends with the driver whose vehicle
had struck Beverly's vehicle, pulled into the pool hall a
couple of minutes later. The defendant was heavily
intoxicated, [2] and was illegally in possession of a
loaded nine millimeter semiautomatic pistol without a permit.
Prior to getting out of his car, the defendant cocked his
gun, not noticing that there was already a cartridge in the
chamber, which caused the gun to jam and become temporarily
inoperable.[3] At some point after exiting his car, the
defendant began ‘‘waving'' his gun around
and then aimed the gun at Beverly. Beverly retreated around
the corner of the building and called 911. After learning
that someone had called the police, the defendant put his gun
back into his waistband and called a friend to obtain a ride
before the police arrived.

Officer
William Garay of the Stamford Police Department responded to
the scene and spotted the defendant walking down a nearby
street while talking on his cell phone. Recognizing that the
defendant fit the description of the person who reportedly
was waving a gun, Garay exited his marked police cruiser near
where the defendant was walking, shined a spotlight on the
defendant, and instructed the defendant to show his hands.
The defendant recognized Garay as a police officer but,
because he was carrying an illegal firearm, ignored
Garay's commands and continued walking. Garay drew his
gun, aimed it at the defendant, and ordered him to stop and
show his hands. The defendant again ignored Garay and kept
walking. Garay began advancing toward the defendant with his
gun drawn and shouted for the defendant to get on the ground.
The defendant then broke into a run, and Garay chased after
him.

At some
point during the chase, Officer Luis Vidal of the Stamford
Police Department arrived on the scene and attempted to block
the defendant's path of escape by driving his cruiser
onto the sidewalk at an angle in front of where the defendant
was running. Garay, who was positioned behind and to the left
of the defendant, could not see the defendant's right
hand as he ran, which was ‘‘somewhere in his
stomach and waistband . . . area.'' Just as Vidal
stopped and exited his cruiser, the defendant, while still
running, suddenly removed his gun from his waistband,
‘‘turned toward his right'' with the gun
in his right hand, and pointed the gun directly at
Garay's midsection. Garay, who was about fifteen feet
away, thought that the defendant was going to shoot him, and
fired a shot at the defendant that missed. As Garay fired the
shot, the defendant ‘‘[a]lmost
simultaneously'' ‘‘dropped'' his
gun to the ground.

Garay
dropped his gun and tackled the defendant to the ground. A
violent struggle ensued. The defendant pushed Garay off him
and struggled to get away, ignored Garay's repeated
demands to stop resisting, and evaded Garay's attempts to
handcuff him by lying on his stomach and clenching his hands
beneath his chest. Vidal ‘‘jumped on''
the defendant to help Garay restrain him. Officer Faruk
Yilmaz of the Stamford Police Department arrived moments
later and noticed the defendant's handgun, which was in a
jammed and temporarily inoperable condition, [4] lying about a
foot away from where the struggle was taking place. Yilmaz
removed it from the area before assisting with the defendant.
Eventually, the three officers subdued and arrested the
defendant.[5]

The
defendant was subsequently charged with multiple offenses,
including attempt to commit assault in the first degree. See
footnote 1 of this opinion. On March 14, 2013, the jury found
the defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court
thereafter rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict,
and imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen years
imprisonment and five years of special parole. This appeal
followed.

The
defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to
convict him of attempt to commit assault in the first degree
because no reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a
reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict serious physical
injury on Garay. In support of this claim, the defendant
argues that ‘‘[t]he simple act of pointing a gun,
without any accompanying assertive behavior that could permit
an inference of specific intent to seriously injure [Garay]
by shooting him, is too equivocal an act to prove
intent.'' In response, the state contends that it
introduced additional evidence, beyond the defendant's
mere act of pointing the gun at Garay, to establish the
defendant's intent, including the defendant's conduct
prior to the encounter with Garay and the fact that the
defendant raised his gun at Garay while attempting to resist
arrest. We agree with the state.[6]

‘‘In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction we apply a two-part test. First, we
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the
facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn
therefrom the [finder of fact] reasonably could have
concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence
established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . In
evaluating evidence, the trier of fact is not required to
accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent
with the defendant's innocence. . . . The trier may draw
whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by
the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical. . . .
This does not require that each subordinate conclusion
established by or inferred ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.